Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Namelesss]

Note, there are a range of meaning to the term 'belief'.

As 'meaning' exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder, I'd agree that there is a great spectrum of 'meaning' ... for anything.
The limited section of that spectrum, of which I speak, is the one from the scientific/philosophical/experiential Perspective.
Few have actually given thought to the assumptions and implications in the words that they use. They just speak as they have become conditioned, and the Reality that they experience is this conditioned 'reality'.
From this limited Perspective of science and philosophy, from having studied 'beliefs' for over half a century, scientifically, philosophically, it is from this narrow window into the spectrum from which I offer my findings. The theory seems to account for all the 'belief' associated phenomena, anyway.

What is critical here is to differentiate between ordinary beliefs and justified true beliefs.

Not so at all!
Any such 'distinction' in the spectrum is arbitrary and spurious.
It's like pointing to some point on the horizon and declaring 'One Siders' vs 'Other Siders'!
Like voting districts and gerrymandering, completely corrupt and arbitrary (self-serving)!
Besides, the symptoms are found to be consistent among any and all belief strains, no matter where you so self-servingly wish to draw your 'critical differentiation'!

• Prove:
  to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:

Yes, Philosophy do not prove anything but Science does.

I'm sorry, but you seem to lack the very basis of science. Science is about the best (at the moment) theory. Science is always seeking to DISPROVE! One simple experiment can disprove a long held and admired theory! No experiment can 'prove' a theory, only add to the data/evidence at the moment.
Get it?

This is justified true beliefs that are testable, repeatable, reproducible

And, if you knew anything of QM, youd realize that that is all babble.

and falsifiable.

Universal Truth is not 'falsifiable'.

Show me how the proof of God is a possibility?

I do not deal in magic, fairies, beliefs or 'proofs', but I will favor you with a smattering of logic for you to do with as you must;
For you to call something a 'possibility', or a 'probability', says nothing more than an admission of your limited vision!
Observe;
Everything exists! (the complete, all inclusive Spectrum!)
Logical. Thoughts exist, thus the content thereof exists as much as the sun exists. All exists! Drawing arbitrary ignorant 'divisions' and 'boundaries' that vanish on any close examination seems rather the dog chasing it's own tail.
Hence the quote;
"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

As I had stated above, there are very evil consequences arising from theism where some % of theists who are naturally evil prone are inspired by evil laden holy verses from God to commit evils and violence as divine duty.

Since we are talking religion, it also warns against judging folks and things.
You have to see through your own aura before you can see anything else!
All 'good' and all 'evil' exist in the vain judgmental eye of the beholder!!
What you are saying, translated into my experience/Knowledge is that 'believers' act awfully, the greater their infection, the more irrationally they behave, the more violent and insanely!
Any and all 'beliefs' (in an ultimately 'make-believe' Reality) is insanity. The only difference is the degree of infection!
Again I'll assert that no one has ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with some strain of belief, whether in God or Money or Science or Uncle Bob...!

What is worst is such evils inspired by a God which is in fact illusory and an impossibility.

Oy with this 'impossible' crap, again.
You seem confused, for something to be 'illusory', it must exist/be 'possible'! Can't have it both ways.
Allow me to offer you an IRREFUTABLE theory of 'God'; Omni-! All inclusive!
All that exists, and that is everything, ever; one could also call it Nature, or the Universe, or Consciousness if you like, or Reality or Truth (or whatever you are more comfortable with and haven't been beaten over the head with when young)!
Unless you are calling the Universe 'impossible', over there with your hands over your eyes... *__-

[Namelesss]

Damn, I inadvertently made a dreaded 'smiley'! Grrrr.... *__-

[Londoner]

Note, repeat,
"To ensure Scientific and other sources of empirical knowledge are more credible, it need to be reinforced with rationality and philosophy-proper. This is what I called empirical-rational basis of knowledge."

Philosophy-proper reveal the limits of Science re problem of induction and take into account its assumptions and expounds its Framework and System.

I do not see how revealing the problem of induction reinforces, or makes science 'more credible'. Like an awareness of its 'Framework and System', it clarifies that its claims are only provisional.

But perhaps that is what you meant.

[Eduk]

I have never understood the argument that scientific theories are not absolute so therefore God. That doesn't follow.
I also don't understand how the scientific theory of QM disproves scientific theories. If it disproves itself then it doesn't prove anything. You can't have it both ways.

[Eduk]

OK. So where does god fall into your proportional belief? Proof or faith?

Well depends which God you are talking about and how you define that God. I personally find God to be largely undefined and what definition there is varies wildly from person to person, even among the same religion and even among the same denomination of a given religion.
But let me try to answer your question as best I can. You should believe nothing based on faith. If you proportion your belief to the evidence and are asked to believe something without evidence then your proportional belief should be zero.

[Namelesss]

I also don't understand how the scientific theory of QM disproves scientific theories.

The theory that has been around for awhile about the oblate spheroidal shape of the Earth displaced the previous theory of a flat Earth. Simple.
QM has done the same thing to most of classical physics.
One example is science's long held ideal of the objective observer (and built much on it, such as 'repeatability'). QM has shown that to be impossible, as each observer is a unique and integral feature of the experiment.
The list is long.
All sciences need the critical QM update to avoid obsolescence!

[Dark Matter]

If you proportion your belief to the evidence and are asked to believe something without evidence then your proportional belief should be zero.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth -- in a word, to know himself -- so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

Do you disagree?

[Dark Matter]

I also don't understand how the scientific theory of QM disproves scientific theories.

The theory that has been around for awhile about the oblate spheroidal shape of the Earth displaced the previous theory of a flat Earth. Simple.
QM has done the same thing to most of classical physics.
One example is science's long held ideal of the objective observer (and built much on it, such as 'repeatability'). QM has shown that to be impossible, as each observer is a unique and integral feature of the experiment.
The list is long.
All sciences need the critical QM update to avoid obsolescence!

What I find puzzling is that people who say empiricism is the final arbiter of truth very often ignore its implications when it conflicts with their materialistic POV.

[Spectrum]

Note, there are a range of meaning to the term 'belief'.

As 'meaning' exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder, I'd agree that there is a great spectrum of 'meaning' ... for anything.
The limited section of that spectrum, of which I speak, is the one from the scientific/philosophical/experiential Perspective.

If you admit the above, you should not have thrown a 'put down' to me like the below;

You question tells me that you have no clue what 'beliefs' are.
One is not rationally, logically, talked into, or out of, 'beliefs'.
They are caught and spread like the infection of 'thought/ego' that they are!
Criminy, just look around you for the evidence.
'Beliefs' are insanity!
No one ever deliberately harms another unless they host a 'belief' infection!

I find your criticism are based on shallow knowledge and you are repeating the same mistake with 'proof' below.

What is critical here is to differentiate between ordinary beliefs and justified true beliefs.

Not so at all!
Any such 'distinction' in the spectrum is arbitrary and spurious.
It's like pointing to some point on the horizon and declaring 'One Siders' vs 'Other Siders'!
Like voting districts and gerrymandering, completely corrupt and arbitrary (self-serving)!
Besides, the symptoms are found to be consistent among any and all belief strains, no matter where you so self-servingly wish to draw your 'critical differentiation'!

Would you accept it if a group of people accuse you of murdering a person [ordinary beliefs] or insist they justify their beliefs as true with clear evidence?
Ordinary beliefs are based on common sense accepted casually when there is no associated critical issues.
Justified true beliefs are those like Science or other Framework where the issues are more serious and thus justification for objectivity is necessary.
In such a case, surely there is a difference between ordinary beliefs and justified true beliefs.

• Prove:
  to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:

Yes, Philosophy do not prove anything but Science does.

I'm sorry, but you seem to lack the very basis of science. Science is about the best (at the moment) theory. Science is always seeking to DISPROVE! One simple experiment can disprove a long held and admired theory! No experiment can 'prove' a theory, only add to the data/evidence at the moment.
Get it?

There you go again, putting someone down when your own knowledge of the issue is shallow, just like 'beliefs' as above.
You are stuck to one narrow meaning of 'proof' and 'prove'.

Note the meaning of proof:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

• Proof
  1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
  2. anything serving as such evidence:
  What proof do you have?
  3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
  to put a thing to the proof.
  4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
  5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
  6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
  7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

I don't see how scientific proofs cannot fit into some of the meanings above.

As I had stated many times, scientific theories are merely polished conjectures.
Scientific truths are not absolute truths but rather they are conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

Therefore scientific proofs are based on the whole process of proving a scientific hypothesis to be true within the requirements of the scientific framework and system.

This is justified true beliefs that are testable, repeatable, reproducible

And, if you knew anything of QM, youd realize that that is all babble.

and falsifiable.

Universal Truth is not 'falsifiable'.

If you are thinking of Plato's Universals, they are non-existent in reality.

Show me how the proof of God is a possibility?

I do not deal in magic, fairies, beliefs or 'proofs', but I will favor you with a smattering of logic for you to do with as you must;
For you to call something a 'possibility', or a 'probability', says nothing more than an admission of your limited vision!

There again, you are jumping to conclusion based on a shallow view.
Is it possible for "you" to fly like a bird 300 meters in the air based on solely your power without any external help or peripheral at all?
Is a square-circle a possibility?

Calling something a 'possibility', or a 'probability' within contexts will make sense and is rational.

Observe;
Everything exists! (the complete, all inclusive Spectrum!)
Logical. Thoughts exist, thus the content thereof exists as much as the sun exists. All exists! Drawing arbitrary ignorant 'divisions' and 'boundaries' that vanish on any close examination seems rather the dog chasing it's own tail.
Hence the quote;
"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

Scientists do not claim their theories are absolute.

What is worst is such evils inspired by a God which is in fact illusory and an impossibility.

Oy with this 'impossible' crap, again.
You seem confused, for something to be 'illusory', it must exist/be 'possible'! Can't have it both ways.

Again your view is shallow.
If it is proven to be an illusion, it is impossible for it to be real.
E.g. a proven mirage [oasis] in the desert is never possible to be the real thing [oasis].

Allow me to offer you an IRREFUTABLE theory of 'God'; Omni-! All inclusive!
All that exists, and that is everything, ever; one could also call it Nature, or the Universe, or Consciousness if you like, or Reality or Truth (or whatever you are more comfortable with and haven't been beaten over the head with when young)!
Unless you are calling the Universe 'impossible', over there with your hands over your eyes... *__-

Since God is an impossibility, the idea of God is moot and a non-starter. Thus there is no need to even raise a hypothesis for God existence.

Kant has argued the idea of a 'Whole Universe' is an illusion.
Science recognizes a known Universe [evidence and empirical extrapolations] but not The Universe as a thing-in-itself.

[Spectrum]

Note, repeat,
"To ensure Scientific and other sources of empirical knowledge are more credible, it need to be reinforced with rationality and philosophy-proper. This is what I called empirical-rational basis of knowledge."

Philosophy-proper reveal the limits of Science re problem of induction and take into account its assumptions and expounds its Framework and System.

I do not see how revealing the problem of induction reinforces, or makes science 'more credible'. Like an awareness of its 'Framework and System', it clarifies that its claims are only provisional.

But perhaps that is what you meant.

Yes.
I meant 'credible' [trustworthy] in the sense that Science is transparent and reveals and accepts its own weaknesses rather than being dogmatic with its theories.

[Namelesss]

The theory that has been around for awhile about the oblate spheroidal shape of the Earth displaced the previous theory of a flat Earth. Simple.
QM has done the same thing to most of classical physics.
One example is science's long held ideal of the objective observer (and built much on it, such as 'repeatability'). QM has shown that to be impossible, as each observer is a unique and integral feature of the experiment.
The list is long.
All sciences need the critical QM update to avoid obsolescence!

What I find puzzling is that people who say empiricism is the final arbiter of truth very often ignore its implications when it conflicts with their materialistic POV.

Neither of us are 'people who say/said' that "empiricism is the final arbiter of truth", with what/whom are you arguing?
Truth needs no arbiter, Truth is ALL inclusive, so, it wouldn't have been me.
He asked a question and I think that I was able to help.
Is there something that I said that you disagree with? Wish to refute? Want explained?

[Dark Matter]

What I find puzzling is that people who say empiricism is the final arbiter of truth very often ignore its implications when it conflicts with their materialistic POV.

Neither of us are 'people who say/said' that "empiricism is the final arbiter of truth", with what/whom are you arguing?
Truth needs no arbiter, Truth is ALL inclusive, so, it wouldn't have been me.
He asked a question and I think that I was able to help.
Is there something that I said that you disagree with? Wish to refute? Want explained?

Sorry. I should have been more clear. Spectrum, among others, seems to be of the mind that empiricism is the final arbiter of truth, but to ignores the questions posed by the implications of QM as inconsequential, and I find that puzzling. I agree with you more often than not and certainly do not put you in that group.

[Namelesss]

As 'meaning' exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder, I'd agree that there is a great spectrum of 'meaning' ... for anything.
The limited section of that spectrum, of which I speak, is the one from the scientific/philosophical/experiential Perspective.

If you admit the above, you should not have thrown a 'put down' to me like the below;

You question tells me that you have no clue what 'beliefs' are.
One is not rationally, logically, talked into, or out of, 'beliefs'.
They are caught and spread like the infection of 'thought/ego' that they are!
Criminy, just look around you for the evidence.
'Beliefs' are insanity!
No one ever deliberately harms another unless they host a 'belief' infection!

A bit delicate? There was, perhaps, a bit of dramatic presentation, but I see no 'put down'.
At any moment, we are Knowledgeable/experiencing something, and ignorant of everything else.
New moment, new Perspective.
Shall we keep to the thoughts offered, rather than getting personal?

Not so at all!
Any such 'distinction' in the spectrum is arbitrary and spurious.
It's like pointing to some point on the horizon and declaring 'One Siders' vs 'Other Siders'!
Like voting districts and gerrymandering, completely corrupt and arbitrary (self-serving)!
Besides, the symptoms are found to be consistent among any and all belief strains, no matter where you so self-servingly wish to draw your 'critical differentiation'!

So, metaphysical Reality is predicated (for you) on small, local, isolated (perceived) events.
In other words, you are willing to live your entire life in 'base ten' in order for 2+2 to = 4 each and every time.
Yes, 2+2=4, but it also equals much more than four.
I am talking Universal, rather than 'local'.
In the large picture, such tiny 'dualistic opposites' are ALL resolved!
("The Tao is the great leveler of all things!")
The smaller the 'picture', the more obvious the apparent 'contradictions'.
To 'believe' the 'appearances' is error.

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

Ordinary beliefs are based on common sense accepted casually when there is no associated critical issues.

So you say. The evidence, research and logic seem to refute your casual assertion.

Justified true beliefs are those like Science or other Framework where the issues are more serious and thus justification for objectivity is necessary.
In such a case, surely there is a difference between ordinary beliefs and justified true beliefs.

Yeah, it appears that we are just repeating ourselves.
I explain and elucidate in (what I see as) rather airtight theory, and you just glissand past, and then repeat some ancient philosopher's error.
If you disagree with something, or have a question, bring it on. Otherwise, I find it fruitless to keep repeating myself, and read your own repetitions, unfounded, unsupported, repeated.
Yes, people have been egoically justifying/feeding their belief infection ever since it came here.
"Ordinary beliefs" = your beliefs when they oppose our "justified true beliefs"! All ego and emotion! No logic or rationality.
And certainly no 'choice'.

I'm sorry, but you seem to lack the very basis of science. Science is about the best (at the moment) theory. Science is always seeking to DISPROVE! One simple experiment can disprove a long held and admired theory! No experiment can 'prove' a theory, only add to the data/evidence at the moment.
Get it?

There you go again, putting someone down when your own knowledge of the issue is shallow, just like 'beliefs' as above.
You are stuck to one narrow meaning of 'proof' and 'prove'.

There you go again glissanding past the truth and reality that I present with a petulant summary self-serving dismissal, disguised as 'wounded indignation'.
Are you that delicate/young that no one can teach you the simplest things?
You are incapable of refuting anything that I say, obviously (other than pathetically displaying some dictionary definitions that can barely withstand philosophical scrutiny.
I told you why your dividing lines are false.
You sputter and spurt and dismiss (all egoic defenses of a 'belief infection' self-defending, symptomatically), but no refutation.

I don't see how scientific proofs cannot fit into some of the meanings above.

All your definitions of 'proof' in the world become irrelevant when you finally learn that science doesn't prove anything.
I explained how that works, but I guess that

Scientific truths are not absolute truths but rather they are conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

Like 'proof', neither does science deal in 'truth'! There is no difference between the two, actually.

Therefore scientific proofs are based on the whole process of proving a scientific hypothesis to be true within the requirements of the scientific framework and system.

Sorry, you are clueless of science, unwilling or unable to learn, and I'm getting tired.

And, if you knew anything of QM, you'd realize that that is all babble.
Universal Truth is not 'falsifiable'.

If you are thinking of Plato's Universals, they are non-existent in reality.

No, not thinking of Plato's 'forms'.
You would be very hard pressed to argue against that "everything exists, ALL inclusive" (thus Reality is ALL inclusive), even Plato's thoughts!

Well, I'm getting tired, and it appears that you 'cannot get here from there, so, I'll leave you to the 'possibility' of a New Year filled with revelation and epiphany!
And whatever 'proof' you need! *__-
Peace

[Eduk]

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth -- in a word, to know himself -- so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.


Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. Let me break it all down for you
1. 'Faith and reason are like two wings' - axiom with no proof. Metaphorical and vague (a bad combination).
2. 'on which the human spirit rises' - what spirit?
3. 'to the contemplation of truth' - what does that mean? Like it is true that I am right handed? Or are we talking about metaphysical truths? Again vague and wholly open to interpretation.
4. 'and God has placed' - what God?
5. 'in the human heart a desire to know the truth' - this is fine.
6. '-- in a word, to know himself --' You see what I meant earlier about what truth? I would never have gotten from truth to 'know myself' on my own. Is this supposed to follow logically?
7. 'so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.' - ok now I'm totally lost. First we talk about knowing truth which is knowing ourselves and now we have to both know and love God to know the truth. None of that follows. I would never have guessed that that was the conclusion from anything else that had been written.

[Eduk]

The theory that has been around for awhile about the oblate spheroidal shape of the Earth displaced the previous theory of a flat Earth. Simple.
QM has done the same thing to most of classical physics.
One example is science's long held ideal of the objective observer (and built much on it, such as 'repeatability'). QM has shown that to be impossible, as each observer is a unique and integral feature of the experiment.
The list is long.
All sciences need the critical QM update to avoid obsolescence!

And yet your car still works. You house is still standing. You can still use GPS and nuclear bombs still explode.